Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to think if you're a net negative in tax you shouldn't be able to vote?

959 replies

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 13:21

Trigger warning: strong political views / rant incoming. A shrinking group is expected to fund an expanding system. The system increasingly penalises work while rewarding dependency.

AIBU to think the modern state is a parasite, and that only those who are a net positive in taxes should be able to vote, rather than forcing working people to support an ever-growing dependent class?

Currently ~21% of working-age adults are economically inactive, meaning not working and not actively seeking work (according to a research brief from the House of Commons). Democracy is broken if voters can vote themselves benefits paid for by others. Representation should be weighted toward those with demonstrable responsibility and contribution.

Currently, the state is extractive and hollowing out the middle class. As anyone that has the eyes to see and ears to hear will know, dependency is rising and and demographics are changing at a rate not seen outside of wartime.

To address this simply, I think if you’re on benefits you should lose the right to vote until you’re a net positive. That would restore equilibrium.

This is essentially Chesterton’s test of a society.

"An honest man falls in love with an honest woman. He wishes, therefore, to marry her, to be the father of her children, to secure her and himself. All systems of government should be tested by whether he can do this.

If any system, feudal, servile, or barbaric, does in fact give him enough land, work, or security that he can do it, there is the essence of liberty and justice.

If any system, Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Green, Reform, or technocratic, does in fact give him wages so low and conditions so insecure that he cannot do it, there is the essence of tyranny and shame."

If the state could stop turning people into dependents that working people have to pay for, that would be great. The state is bloated, fixated on wealth redistribution rather than wealth creation, and actively working against the people it is meant to represent. It is incapable of creating the conditions for wealth, stability, and independence. This is managed decline, and we need some adults in the room who have read a book. AIBU?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 18:11

throwawayimplantchat · 12/01/2026 18:04

I imagine her life is much easier if she laughs along and does a lot of ‘yes, dear’. Maybe she’ll have her own thread on here one day! What is ‘hilarious’ though, it’s not really funny material or is her bar just ever so low?

We're not boomers. Nobody talks like that 😂

OP posts:
SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 18:09

TheCompactPussycat · 12/01/2026 18:06

So please explain what effort the puppy put in to obtaining it's own DNA. You'll need to use the same established meaning of 'luck' that I am if you wish your argument to be valid and taken seriously. If you choose to continue to use the 'random chance' meaning in your argument (which is a valid meaning of the word but is not the one I am using) then your response will be invalid and will simply prove my point.

Go ahead...

You understand me perfectly. I'm happy to leave it here because I'm not interested in trying to wake up someone who is pretending to be asleep. It's your argument that rests on 'luck' not mine. I think we're a product of a genetic lineage and countless generations striving to get us here. Apparently you think it's random. Each to their own. God bless you.

OP posts:
Kateluvscats1 · 12/01/2026 18:09

Approximately 1 million pensioners in the UK are higher tax payers
Overall Taxpayer Population: Pensioners currently account for approximately 22.3% of all UK income taxpayers in the 2025/26 tax year. They hold a significant share of the UK's overall wealth, driven largely by property and private pensions.

TheCompactPussycat · 12/01/2026 18:06

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 17:48

It's not luck at all.

So please explain what effort the puppy put in to obtaining it's own DNA. You'll need to use the same established meaning of 'luck' that I am if you wish your argument to be valid and taken seriously. If you choose to continue to use the 'random chance' meaning in your argument (which is a valid meaning of the word but is not the one I am using) then your response will be invalid and will simply prove my point.

Go ahead...

throwawayimplantchat · 12/01/2026 18:04

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 18:01

She's been reading this and thinks it's hilarious. But she's told me off for being a troll. A little bit unfair?

Edited

I imagine her life is much easier if she laughs along and does a lot of ‘yes, dear’. Maybe she’ll have her own thread on here one day! What is ‘hilarious’ though, it’s not really funny material or is her bar just ever so low?

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 18:03

ArseInTheCoOpWindow · 12/01/2026 18:01

‘markist Kool aid’

Who the fuck drinks Kool Aid in the U.K.? And l assume you mean Marxist?

Markist & Spencers. That's where you buy the best kool aid.

OP posts:
SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 18:01

throwawayimplantchat · 12/01/2026 18:00

I hope your wife has enjoyed a bit of respite and quiet time to herself this afternoon while you’ve been doing whatever this is, at least.

She's been reading this and thinks it's hilarious. But she's told me off for being a troll. A little bit unfair?

OP posts:
ArseInTheCoOpWindow · 12/01/2026 18:01

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 16:58

It isn't luck. You could no more of been born into my family as you could Denzel Washington. There is no alternative universe where you have different parents. You are made up of a genetic code that's been continued through your family since people first became people. Stop drinking the markist kool aid. We are not lego bricks. You cannot just replace people and swap them out thinking it's all the same.

Edited

‘markist Kool aid’

Who the fuck drinks Kool Aid in the U.K.? And l assume you mean Marxist?

throwawayimplantchat · 12/01/2026 18:00

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 17:58

OK? But now we're clear and understand each other. Great.

I hope your wife has enjoyed a bit of respite and quiet time to herself this afternoon while you’ve been doing whatever this is, at least.

Kirbert2 · 12/01/2026 17:59

NotMeAtAll · 12/01/2026 17:51

The state also governs people who don't pay tax. They're entitled to their say as much as anyone.

Yep.

You'd probably find some people who aren't allowed to vote becoming less and less compliant in that case.

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 17:58

throwawayimplantchat · 12/01/2026 17:56

But I specifically asked you about that example. You didn’t say it would be an exception. You said a high earning, hard working person with a disability that costs the NHS more than they pay in tax should lose their vote.

When I checked if that’s what you meant, you clarified yes, they should and that it would be for the betterment of all.

I asked what the net benefit would be and now you claim heuristics?

You were very clear. Even high tax payers who become disabled and cost more than they put in should lose their vote.

With no net benefit (unless you can actually think of some) this is simply a punishment for someone being disabled and doesn’t benefit anyone at all.

The same money is still ‘gone’ from the NHS. The same tax is still paid into the system. The disabled person just loses voting rights.

OK? But now we're clear and understand each other. Great.

OP posts:
throwawayimplantchat · 12/01/2026 17:56

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 17:45

It's a heuristic. There will be exceptions to the rule but it's still useful if not always true etc...

But I specifically asked you about that example. You didn’t say it would be an exception. You said a high earning, hard working person with a disability that costs the NHS more than they pay in tax should lose their vote.

When I checked if that’s what you meant, you clarified yes, they should and that it would be for the betterment of all.

I asked what the net benefit would be and now you claim heuristics?

You were very clear. Even high tax payers who become disabled and cost more than they put in should lose their vote.

With no net benefit (unless you can actually think of some) this is simply a punishment for someone being disabled and doesn’t benefit anyone at all.

The same money is still ‘gone’ from the NHS. The same tax is still paid into the system. The disabled person just loses voting rights.

CalishataFolkart · 12/01/2026 17:55

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 17:54

I don't care 🤷‍♂️

The most honest thing you’ve said all afternoon. Well done

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 17:54

throwawayimplantchat · 12/01/2026 17:51

@SBGM247

Mate, this is so clearly lazy AI to any of us currently working in industries involving it at all 😂

“…fragmenting authority, weakening accountability, and removing the tension that had restrained power.”

I don't care 🤷‍♂️

OP posts:
SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 17:53

ObelixtheGaul · 12/01/2026 17:51

We did live in a society like that, once. It was highly exploitative and those who were wealthy made damn sure it was as hard as possible for anyone else to 'level up' by restriction their access to education, etc. This ensured that if you were born into a certain social class, you had no means of raising yourself out of it.

If the only means by which a child can receive education is by hoping that somebody is kind enough to volunteer, that child may never get the opportunity to be educated to the same standard as the child of wealthy parents. What that means is that a cycle of class poverty becomes impossible to get out of. Of course, that suited a lot of people, because, as has been said on this thread, the wealthy need people to do the dirty stuff they don't want to do.

So you make sure they've no way out. No route available to them. You don't make people more self sufficient by this approach, you simply make them less capable of changing their own circumstances. So then we are back to a state of affairs a lot of people put a lot of time and effort into getting us away from. A class-riddled society with little mobility and a small number of people holding not only all the wealth, but all the means of obtaining it.

I really feel you should acquaint yourself with history of this nation, so you can have some idea of the problems with that model.

If you read this thread at no point have I said people shouldn't have access to education or healthcare. In face, the opposite. They should! But if they're taking more than they're giving they don't get to vote.

OP posts:
ObelixtheGaul · 12/01/2026 17:51

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 17:30

I want to live in a society where people are sovereign and not forced to fund a bloated state. Where no one is entitled to the property or labour of others simply because it is politically fashionable or delivers short term gains for parties in power. Where support for those in need exists, but is voluntary, local, and accountable, rather than compulsory.

We did live in a society like that, once. It was highly exploitative and those who were wealthy made damn sure it was as hard as possible for anyone else to 'level up' by restriction their access to education, etc. This ensured that if you were born into a certain social class, you had no means of raising yourself out of it.

If the only means by which a child can receive education is by hoping that somebody is kind enough to volunteer, that child may never get the opportunity to be educated to the same standard as the child of wealthy parents. What that means is that a cycle of class poverty becomes impossible to get out of. Of course, that suited a lot of people, because, as has been said on this thread, the wealthy need people to do the dirty stuff they don't want to do.

So you make sure they've no way out. No route available to them. You don't make people more self sufficient by this approach, you simply make them less capable of changing their own circumstances. So then we are back to a state of affairs a lot of people put a lot of time and effort into getting us away from. A class-riddled society with little mobility and a small number of people holding not only all the wealth, but all the means of obtaining it.

I really feel you should acquaint yourself with history of this nation, so you can have some idea of the problems with that model.

throwawayimplantchat · 12/01/2026 17:51

@SBGM247

Mate, this is so clearly lazy AI to any of us currently working in industries involving it at all 😂

“…fragmenting authority, weakening accountability, and removing the tension that had restrained power.”

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 17:51

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 12/01/2026 17:50

Unfortunately for you, repeating yourself like a broken record doesn't make your argument any more valid.

Ironic.

OP posts:
NotMeAtAll · 12/01/2026 17:51

The state also governs people who don't pay tax. They're entitled to their say as much as anyone.

SerendipityJane · 12/01/2026 17:51

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 17:49

I explained it to you but I can't understand it for you. Sorry.

No need to be sorry. I'm grateful you spared a few seconds of your time to even consider my existence. I know how busy you are.

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 12/01/2026 17:50

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 17:48

It's not luck at all.

Unfortunately for you, repeating yourself like a broken record doesn't make your argument any more valid.

SerendipityJane · 12/01/2026 17:50

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 17:46

I pay 55% tax not including all the hidden taxes

Well, yes. That's because you are one of societies good eggs.

But as a sovereign citizen aren't you exempt from taxes ? I'm sure I was once told that. Somewhere.

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 17:49

SerendipityJane · 12/01/2026 17:48

Do you know something ? It took me four passes of that wall of text before I realised it wasn't actually answering the question posed.

I explained it to you but I can't understand it for you. Sorry.

OP posts:
SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 17:48

TheCompactPussycat · 12/01/2026 17:45

Is that the most intelligent answer you could produce?

If my pet poodle gave birth I would expect it to produce offspring with at least some poodle DNA. I could choose the parentage carefully to aim for a healthy pedigree puppy. From the puppy's perspective it's DNA is pure luck since it has no agency in choosing it.

It's not luck at all.

OP posts:
SerendipityJane · 12/01/2026 17:48

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 17:44

David Starkey does some good stuff explaining Tony Blair damaged the UK’s unwritten constitution by breaking roles that were meant to overlap, be restrained by convention, and held together by habit rather than statute.

He turned conventions into law, removing the ambiguity that had restrained power.

He split the Lord Chancellor’s role, stripping out its balancing function by separating overlapping responsibilities into narrower, technocratic ones.

He replaced multi-role institutions that forced trade-offs and judgment with single-issue working groups, fragmenting authority, weakening accountability, and removing the tension that had restrained power.

He created the Supreme Court, weakening parliamentary sovereignty by importing a more politicised judicial model.

He made long-standing roles redundant without replacing their constitutional function, damaging precedent and eroding the informal guardrails that had held the system together.

Do you know something ? It took me four passes of that wall of text before I realised it wasn't actually answering the question posed.